Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
R Padmanabha vs Ellaboina Parvathalu @ E Parvathalu on 10 February, 2020 cites

Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. vs Dr. Manoj Bisla & Ors. on 3 June, 2010

8. Learned counsel for the appellant drawing our attention to the judgment dated 15.2.2018 passed in C.C.No.26873/2015, wherein he was acquitted of the offences of rash and negligent driving and causing the accident, contended that the award passed by the MACT 6 was unsustainable and the appellant is entitled for exonerated from the award. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme, Court in "SURINDAR KUMAR ARORA AND ANOTHER VS. Dr. MANOJ BISLA AND OTHERS, AIR 2012 SC 1918, in support of his contention that the burden to prove rash and negligent driving would lie on the claimant and in case of failure to discharge the burden, the claim was liable for dismissal.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 216 - S N Dhingra - Full Document

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Dhapo @ Longshree & Ors on 20 September, 2019

12. On a consideration of the submissions, and having due regards to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'BIMLA DEVI & ORS. VS. HRTC & ORS.', 2009(13) SCC 530; 'KUSUM LATA & ORS. VS. SATPIR & ORS', 2011 (3) SCC 646; 'PARMESHWARI VS. AMIRCHAND & ORS', 2011 (11) SCC 635, the claimant in a motor accident claim is not required to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, and it would suffice, if it is proved by probabilities. There being no independent witness to prove that the deceased himself jumped on the car of the appellant and caused the accident, the finding of the MACT regarding rash and negligent by the driver of the car which is based on Police investigation records, does not warrant interference. It is the duty of a driver to notice other road users and take due care to avoid accidents by anticipating their follies. The appellant having failed in this test, no interference with the award is called for.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - N Waziri - Full Document

Smt. Tara Devi & Others vs Hrtc And Others on 19 June, 2015

12. On a consideration of the submissions, and having due regards to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'BIMLA DEVI & ORS. VS. HRTC & ORS.', 2009(13) SCC 530; 'KUSUM LATA & ORS. VS. SATPIR & ORS', 2011 (3) SCC 646; 'PARMESHWARI VS. AMIRCHAND & ORS', 2011 (11) SCC 635, the claimant in a motor accident claim is not required to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, and it would suffice, if it is proved by probabilities. There being no independent witness to prove that the deceased himself jumped on the car of the appellant and caused the accident, the finding of the MACT regarding rash and negligent by the driver of the car which is based on Police investigation records, does not warrant interference. It is the duty of a driver to notice other road users and take due care to avoid accidents by anticipating their follies. The appellant having failed in this test, no interference with the award is called for.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - M A Mir - Full Document
1